|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-26 18:36:23
If Iraq uses chemical weapons against US troops, there is already a response in the offing. Presidential Security Directive #17 states that the US will escalate to nuclear weapons if attacked by WMD. That leaves Canada in a bit of a quandry. If we say 'all bets are off' also, we will them be supporting nuclear (albeit tactical) war. Something of a dangerous precedent, I should think.
In fact, the US has already been subjected to a WMD attack, on it's own soil. The anthrax mailings seems to have fallen off of the media story list, right around the time the anthrax strain in question was 'genetically mapped' and traced back to Ft. Detrick, Maryland. Odd, considering the fact that 2 US senators were ostensibly targeted for WMD assassination.
This begs the question, "Why has the US invaded a country that might have WMD, and then MIGHT sell them to terrorist organizations (provided that the US can prove Iraq has them in the first place) and stopped the investigation of ACTUAL use of WMD on US soil against US citizens?"
Reply to this message
|